“How about a cigarette lighter, arm rest, coin holder, door pockets, seat back pockets, cup holders, or iDrive?”
I have no problem with any of those things, as long as they are not mandated.
The Hans device is a good feature, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the driver getting out of the car quickly (which is why the F1 drivers resisted it for quite a while). There would be very little point in putting airbags in real race cars, there is no free space in the cockpit anyway.
Yeah, a lot of people wouldn’t like them- but why in Hell are they illegal? (Assuming they are illegal)
I own an old “street car” with a 4-point racing harness installed in place of the original seat belt on the drivers side. I don’t really know/care if it’s legal.
The 3-point harness and air bag are a proxy for the 5-point or 7-point harnesses that racers wear. I agree that few would want to strap in with a 5 point harness. Three of them in the back seat would be a hoot. And they could be… immodest when wearing a short skirt.
Since this thread seems to have a lot of digression; a couple random thoughts. In the 60’s my uncle bought a Checker cab as the family car and rolled it pretty bad. He only had minor injuries. It had a built in roll cage. Kids are safer in a school bus w/o seat belts than they are in a car using seat belts. ?
I don’t understand the school bus thing at all, someone must have a powerful lobby at work.
I think you could drop a building on a checker marathon without hurting it, what a tank.
I do think they should be available as an option, at a cost that actually represents their installed cost.
The problem here is that airbags as an option would be far more expensive than as standard equipment. This would lead to fewer people buying airbags which, in a vicious circle, would lead to higher costs. The only way that airbags (or traction control, or ABS, or…) will be affordable is to make them standard equipment.
If you have a complex about airbags and don’t want them, fine – buy an old car without them, or even remove them from a newer car. Seat belts are still the primary protection, but airbags supplement them. Yes, safety equipment does add cost and weight and complexity, but reported problems with any of it are relatively few. I’ll take safety equipment over no safety equipment any day.
I don’t have a “complex about airbags,” and I can afford not to buy new cars, so it’s really not an individual issue for me. However, I do object to this stuff (including ABS, traction control, etc.) being forced on people who have no choice but to buy whatever junk is currently available on the market. If you want this stuff, feel free to buy cars equipped with it; I just wish everyone had that choice. End of rant.
And my point was, if all this safety “junk” is optional, the price to the consumer will be far higher. Lower unit production means higher cost to procure; cars built with and built without are more expensive labor and design wise. For example, steering wheel hubs are huge because the bag is stored there. If the bag is omitted, it would cost more for you to demand a “sleeker” wheel hub rather than just having an empty hub (two kinds of hubs in stock rather than one). ABS used to be an option for most cars, and was more expensive than it is now (where it’s standard equipment). Why? Higher unit volumes and simpler build process.
If you don’t like safety-related equipment being “forced” on you, don’t buy recent vintage cars, and quit whining. If you’re old enough, you were probably complaining about the cost and inconvenience of having seat belts forced on you back in the mid '60s. And collapsible steering columns. And padded dashboards. And… Most people are happy to have improved chances of walking away from a wreck (or even avoiding it in the first place). If you’re not, that’s your problem.
I understood, your point, I just don’t care about the cost of something I would never buy. I would like them to make it optional so folks have the opportunity to not pay for it. If few enough people thought they were worth paying for, they would go away; too bad. If the public really values this stuff, they should be willing to pay a premium without the rest of us subsidizing them.
I have never complained about passive safety provisions, which are actually useful. As you have suggested, I drive older cars that are not equipped with this nonsense.
Not only is the idea of removing PROVEN safety features patently absurd I GUARANTEE that the auto makers would not discount any “non-equipped” cars. They would simply mark up cars that had additional safety features. This would mean you would not pay any less and people who want safer cars would pay more. I know you probably wax nostalgic for the days of higher death rates (per mile driven) but I will take those “annoying” safety features in every car I buy. My wife survived a head on collision with a Suburban in a Honda Accord at 45 MPH by the grace of god and a properly functioning air bag. She had nothing but bruises and the admiration of the first responders who were utterly amazed she had survived. The entire front end of the Honda was flattened. If you are married or have a partner I would hope you want them to have that kind of protection.
Unfortunately, you are probably correct. Those folks who have to buy new cars are going to be forced to buy more and more of this stuff, these types of mandates never go away. My wife is an adult and can drive whatever she wants (she drives a very nice '83 that is free from this crap), and airbags are worse than useless for kids. Personally, I’m glad the supply of good old cars will outlive me so I will never have to deal with this stuff. I’ve bent up a couple of cars/motorcycles in my time and I’m glad I’ve never had an airbag in my face. I am forced to drive rentals occasionally, and not very happy about it.
I’d like to hear some EMT’s weigh in on this issue. Maybe some already have.
Kids are safer in a school bus w/o seat belts than they are in a car using seat belts. ?
From a statistical standpoint yes they are…But that’s ONLY because School busses don’t drive very fast…most of the time they are traveling UNDER the speed limit bacause they are picking up or dropping off kids. But when school bus DOES get in a accident kids are 10 times more likely to get injured then if they were in a accident doing the same speed in their family mid-size car.
By your same logic…you can say that you’re safer flying because there are far less deaths and injuries in airplanes then in cars…That doesn’t mean you’re safer in a airplane during a crash then you are in a car during a crash. I’d rather be in a car when it crashes then a airplane when it crashes any day…unless the car crashes into an airplane.
Even though manufacturers are forced to include the latest life-saving technology, anyone who has the money can restore an old car and have a new engine installed. Even though life-saving technology is mandated in new cars, anyone with enough money will always have the ability to spend their money foolishly.
Professional drivers spend a lot of time learning to manage their risk. The same goes for smart amateur drivers and smart mototcycle riders. If meanjoe75fan (the OP) is going to take someone’s advice, it shouldn’t be the advice of someone who deliberately increases his risk. I hope all of you (except Craig58, of course) are smart enough to see that.
Having a preference is one thing. Denying the effectiveness of proven life-saving technology is another thing.
When airbags first came out more than 15 years ago, there were some problems. The newest generations of safety features are proven to save lives. The newest airbags are designed to work with seatbelts. Seatbelts offer no real protection for your head and your neck. The airbags offer that protection. Many vehicles that don’t have back seats offer the ability to disable the passenger airbag so that a child seat can safely placed there. This is only because they are not designed to work with child safety seats. This should not be confused with the idea that they are somehow unsafe in regular situations. Unless you have special needs, like if you are 4’6" tall and you sit too close to the steering wheel, you are always safer with the latest life-saving technology. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones.
I hope the OP can make his own decisions, anyone who wants to buy “life-saving technology” and make themselves feel safer should do so. Of course, you can always feel very safe by never leaving the house. Maybe we should all just live in big bubbles, always wear our motorcycle/bicycle/ski helmets, never cross against the light, obey all speed limits, never go swimming less than an hour after eating, don’t forget our life vests, be careful of that slippery bath tub, eat our veggies, don’t talk on that phone while driving, wear that condom, don’t even think about rock climbing/sky diving/hang gliding/auto racing, read all warning labels before climbing that ladder, definitely don’t get that hot McD’s coffee, watch out for second hand smoke, and be sure to wear our little mittens.
Everyone should be free to choose their own level of risk avoidance, I am constantly amazed at how risk adverse (to put it politely) americans have become. This stuff has gone way beyond silly.
You are correct, fortunately one can buy their way out of most of this nonsense. I’m done discussing this.
Seatbelts keep you in postion during an accident. Airbags are designed to keep you from being impelled on the steering wheel or as in the case of the passenger, having the dash come into you. The two are designed to work together. There are now bags in the side of the driver/passenger seats for side impact also, designed to protect pevic and thorax from side impact. More companies are starting to make standard another bag that goes under the headliner on both sides of the car. It is designed to prevent occupent ejections. If you believe in this technology or not is up to you. I always thought I was never going to be in an accident after 40 some yr. driving, but low and behold it happened. Few minor scrapes and bruses, not bad for rear ending a stalled car at 45 mph.
Did you know that going swimming immediately after eating is perfectly safe? The idea that you must wait an hour or you will get a cramp and die is an urban myth. So the fact that you brought it up in this discussion somehow suggests that you think that the decline in automobile fatalities because of the use of safety equipment is somehow another urban myth? It is real. It is measurable. Those lives were worth saving in my opinion and after discussing this topic with you at length, I have come to believe that your position is based on your stubborn unwillingness to value the thousands of lives that are saved by modern safety equipment. You seem to make the argument time and time again that having safety equipment somehow diminishes your ability to enjoy your vehicle. That is really sad. Having a car with crumple zones and air bags has not diminished my enjoyment of my car one bit. Living life in a bubble would be based on fear. Requiring safety equipment in new cars isn’t a fear based decision. It is a logic based decision. Nothing is lost by adding air bags to a car unless you value the danger of their absence, which is clearly a preference that defies logic.
There are those in this world who, without making it mandatory, would select a car without airbags if it was an option. Of those people, some get in collisions and come to value the life-saving ability of those airbags. These people are eventually thankful that they were required. Don’t those lives have value? I think they do. I think your life has value, despite your stubborn nature and even if you never change your position, you are in the minority in a land where majority rules unless it infringes on the rights of the minority. Again and again, you have expressed your preference, but you have failed to convince me that your rights are being infringed upon. Even if there were no alternatives available to you, I don’t believe that the depriving you of your so-called right to avoid safety equipment would diminish your quality of life in any way. In fact, there is no discernable disadvantage to safety equipment. Is there?
OK, I guess I’m not done.
Just to be clear, the existence of this mandate does not “infringe upon my rights” because I can afford not to drive these things. However, it does force everyone who is stuck buying a new car with the expense of something they may not want or need. I simply do not agree that it is appropriate for “big brother” to force this stuff on the consumer. To me, individual choice is always going to be more important than whatever (perceived or real) benefit can be gained from the latest gimmick that some lobbyist has turned into a mandate. How is this any different than mandating flu vaccinations, prohibiting smoking or eating junk food, requiring motorcycle helmets, mandatory health insurance, forcing people to accept medical treatment against their will, lukewarm McD’s coffee, prohibiting trans fats in consumer products, etc.? I’m sure someone can make a good “safety” case (and a significant profit) to make each of these a mandate too (in some places some already are). I just don’t see any end in sight, and this is not my idea of progress. Honestly, this is the kind of nonsense that makes me seriously think about living elsewhere.
This isn’t really about airbags, which aren’t an issue for me anyway, it’s an example of way too much government poking around in our lives. Unlike you, I think those “thousands of lives” belong to individuals who have the capability and the right to make their own decisions. If I understand correctly, you want to live in a world with more mandates and less personal choice; be careful what you wish for…
“That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Paine